LongCat 2.0 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: LongCat 2.0 by LongCat or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-08-19.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
LongCat 2.0 scores 12.7 points higher (34.0 vs 21.3) but costs 1.8× as much to run the benchmark ($442 vs $250; both mid-range class). Pick LongCat 2.0 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3 Coder Next.
| Metric | LongCat 2.0 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.0 | 21.3 | −37.4% Qwen3 Coder Next is 37.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $441.77 | $250.18 | −43.4% Qwen3 Coder Next is 43.4% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 66.44s | 4.97s | −92.5% Qwen3 Coder Next is 92.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.75 / $2.95 | $0.35 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs LongCat 2.0: 37.4% less intelligence, 43.4% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 92.5% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Gemini 3.7 Flash (medium) scores 53.40 for $278.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-5.6 Luna (max) scores 52.30 for $172.
LongCat 2.0Qwen3 Coder NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/qwen3-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/longcat-2-0/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill